Case Summaries

Family Law

[09/02] In re Jose C.
Juvenile court's order terminating mother's parental rights and freeing the child for adoption is affirmed where: 1) trial court did not err in finding that the child was likely to be adopted; and 2) juvenile court did not err in failing to consider "presumed father" status for the grandfather.

[09/02] In re H.S.
Juvenile court's orders adjudicating minors to be dependent children and removing them from parental custody are affirmed as the tern "new evidence" in section 388 means material evidence that, with due diligence, the party could not have presented at the dependency proceeding at which the order, sought to be modified or set aside, was entered, and here, the father's section 388 motion relied on a expert opinion that was based not on any new evidence, but on the same evidence available to the experts who testified at trial. Further, to allow the belated new opinion evidence to support a section 388 motion would be contrary to the public policy calling for promptness and finality of juvenile dependency proceedings in order to protect the best interests of the child.

[09/02] In re A.L.
In dependency proceedings, trial court's dispositional order that minor child be returned to the custody of her mother and an order of family enhancement services is affirmed where: 1) because parental custody of the child was not disrupted by the dispositional order, and the child was not placed in foster care, there is no current need to "reunify" this family; and 2) father has made no showing that the "family enhancement" services ordered for him were not reasonable or did not constitute child welfare services or services provided by an appropriate agency.

[08/31] In re A.M.
An order declaring a father's minor children dependents of the juvenile court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300(f) is affirmed where: 1) substantial evidence supports the court's section 300(f) jurisdictional finding that the father caused the death of a minor child through neglect; and 2) after considering all of the evidence and having the opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses, the juvenile court was in the best position to make the credibility findings concerning the father's statements.

[08/30] In re R.R.
In dependency proceedings, juvenile court's order declaring petitioner-father's daughter a person described by Welfare and Institutions Code section 300(b) based on the father's past and current drug use, is affirmed where: 1) the juvenile court did not err in denying father's motion to quash subpoena of his hospitalization; 2) any error in not hearing the motion to quash was harmless because as a matter of substantive law the motion would have been denied as father's hospital records were admissible; 3) father's claim that his right to privacy was violated by dissemination of his medical records is rejected; 4) substantial evidence supported the finding that the daughter was a person described by section 300; and 5) juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by ordering monitored visits.

[08/24] Karpenko v. Leendertz
In a child custody dispute, a grant of a mother's petition for the child's return under the Hague Convention of the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction is affirmed and the minor child's immediate return to her mother in the Netherlands is ordered where: 1) the district court's findings of fact were not clearly erroneous; and 2) the application of the unclean hands doctrine would undermine the Hague Convention's goal of protecting the well-being of the child, of restoring the status quo before the child's abduction, and of ensuring that rights of custody and of access under the law of one Contracting State are effectively respected in the other Contracting States.

[08/17] US v. Newman
Defendant's sentence for violating the International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act is reversed where the district court clearly erred in finding that the offense was "otherwise extensive in scope, planning, or preparation" and thus enhancing the sentence.

[08/13] CFTC v. Walsh
In an action by the CFTC and SEC alleging securities fraud, the Second Circuit certified the following question to the New York Court of Appeals: 1) does "marital property" within the meaning of New York Domestic Relations Law section 236 include the proceeds of fraud?; and 2) does a spouse pay "fair consideration" according to the terms of New York Debtor and Creditor Law section 272 when she relinquishes in good faith a claim to the proceeds of fraud?

[08/11] Ziino v. Baker
In an action seeking to levy against assets held in trust for a bankrupt party in an action based on a prior bankruptcy court order, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) the bankruptcy court's order contained no clear designation of plaintiff's entitlement, especially in view of his significant recovery from the bankruptcy estate after the order issued; and 2) plaintiff's privately negotiated agreement with defendant did not qualify as an enforceable judgment for child support.

[08/10] Yepremyan v. Holder
In a petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying petitioner's motion to reopen for adjustment of status, the petition is denied where: 1) the day after Thanksgiving was a legal holiday for purposes of calculating time under Fed. R. App. P. 26(a); and 2) petitioner did not submit sufficient supporting documentation to show by clear and convincing evidence that her marriage was bona fide.

[08/04] In re Vanessa Q.
Family law court's determination that petitioner, who is currently incarcerated in Mexico, had abandoned his three children in terminating his parental rights is affirmed as petitioner's argument that the judgment is void for lack of personal jurisdiction because he was not properly served with notice of the proceedings in accordance with the Convention on Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters fails because he made a general appearance through his counsel at the hearing on the petition and thus consented to the court's exercise of jurisdiction over him.

[08/03] Enovsys LLC. v. Nextel Communications, Inc.
In a patent infringement suit against Sprint Nextel Corporation and its various subsidiaries, claiming that Sprint Nextel's iDEN and CDMA wireless networks infringed two patents covering inventions that use global positioning satellites (GPS) and ground control stations to determine the physical location of mobile devices, jury verdict in favor of plaintiff in finding that Sprint Nextel infringed both patents and an award of approximately $2.78 million in damages, and various rulings against Sprint Nextel are affirmed where: 1) the district court correctly denied Sprint Nextel's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction as plaintiff had standing to bring and maintain the suit without joining the ex-wife of one of the patents' co-inventors because, giving the California divorce decree the preclusive effect required, the ex-wife had no ownership interest in the asserted patents at the time the case was filed, or anytime thereafter;and 2) the district court correctly denied Sprint Nextel's post-verdict JMOL, as Sprint Nextel waived its right to argue its new claim constructions.

[07/29] US v. Knight
Defendant's sentence for failure to pay child support is affirmed where: 1) the district court specifically addressed defendant's lack of income, his "drug abuse issue," his prior problems with the law, and that he was "doing stuff to help out at home"; and 2) the district court did not give significant weight to the fact that defendant and his family receive Social Security disability income, an allegedly irrelevant factor.

[07/29] In re the Marriage of Nicholas
In a highly contested marital dissolution proceeding, involving the co-founder of Broadcom Corporation and his spouse, a contention that the family court lacked jurisdiction to issue a revised sealing order because it was bound by the initial family law judge's ruling is rejected, and the trial court's July 6, 2009 order affirmed as the new judge had continuing jurisdiction to modify the interim sealing orders and to control the court's record's in compliance with the law.

[07/29] Pareja v. U.S. Attorney General
A Mexican citizen's petition for review of BIA's final order of removal is granted in part, denied in part, dismissed in part, and remanded where: 1) the petition is denied insofar as it attacks Matter of Monreal and the BIA's interpretation of the cancellation of removal statute's hardship standard; 2) the petition is granted to the extent it relates to the BIA's consideration of the number of petitioner's qualifying relatives, and the matter is remanded to the BIA for the limited purpose of allowing it to clarify or to reconsider its application of Matter of Recinas to this case; and 3) the remainder of the petition is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Back to Main